[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 8:12 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:18:15 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I agree 100 percent Scott. Background checks and the registration of a
transfer or sale in no way infringes on anyone's rights.

I ask you the same thing I asked BAO

Do you feel the same about voting?

There is nothing in the constitution that says you don't have to be
investigated, finger printed and need to have an ID card to vote ...
as long as any non-felon citizen over 18 can do it.
As you and BAO point out, you may need to jump through some hoops to
exercise your rights.
When you think of it, we are talking about the same subset of the
population. I have voted with my CCW license. (it is the top card in
my wallet)



The individual states determine eligibility to vote. Most, if not all,
require some form of proof of age and citizenship. If you don't have an
acceptable ID, you can get a voter ID for free in most states after
providing various forms or methods as of proof of citizenship.

Ever notice that you have to *register* to vote? The "R" word. LOL

[Wayne.B]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.

===

Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this
unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies
clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear
about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important
question.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 7:06 PM, BAR wrote:


Why do we let idiots, and I do mean idiots, vote? Should people have to
take an IQ test so that we are assured that the people casting votes are
of enough intelligence or intellect that we will be comfortable with
them making decisions that affect those of a higher level intelligence
or intellect.


Idiots share the same rights that you do.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.

===

Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this
unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies
clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear
about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important
question.



In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to
reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them.
Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in
the USA are not registered anywhere.

It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight.

I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support
many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more
related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much
on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think
because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer.

[Poco Loco]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/3/2014 7:30 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:55:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:





Now, now John. I never advocated banning guns or even close. All I've
advocated is that a simple, inexpensive and long-standing system that
performs the most basic of checks be used in all gun sales or transfers.

It just doesn't make sense that the purchase of a new firearm from a
dealer is subject to this but isn't in subsequent transfers in many states.

I've been interested in hearing specific and sensible reasons why people
would oppose such a requirement. So far, all I've heard is:

"It won't keep criminals from getting guns".
"It's another tax"
"Slippery slope"
"Data base for future confiscation of all firearms"
"Why should I pay a fee to a FFL"

(that one cracks me up. The "fee" is not much and only applies when you
are selling or transferring a gun which isn't that often. You probably
shoot up the cost of the "fee" during one visit to the range)

Or, as Greg proposes, "Create your own documentation system with cameras
and driver's licenses"

I think what we're getting to is that there is *no* rational reason to
oppose background checks and transfer documentation for *all* changes in
ownership of a firearm.

The underlying reason for opposition is the mantra, "You are infringing
on my 2A rights".

*That* is ridiculous.

You've still never addressed the transfer document I've shown you.

And, although you may find all the reasons irrational, I'd suggest
they're no more irrational than the idea that a lot of paperwork will
make society 'safer'.

So, we disagree.



Correct me if I am wrong but I think you acknowledged that the document
you linked to was *not* a federal form. If I understand correctly it's
simply an optional and personal, official looking bill of sale.

Exactly.

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.

The document I provided traces the serial number from the old owner to
the new. The record of custody remains. I've sold two guns in the past
few years. Neither were through the federal bureaucracy, but the
record of custody is not broken. When I transfer two rifles in the
next few months, the record of custody will be intact.

If circumstance cause the feds to need the information, they can come
ask me. No problem.

[Poco Loco]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 20:31:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/3/2014 8:07 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:21:32 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/3/14 6:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/3/2014 6:22 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:39:41 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

If you really want a good delineating point, liberals are city people
who expect the government or a government regulated business will
provide for their every need. Conservatives tend to not be typical
city people who do not need someone to provide everything they need
and they are willing to do things themselves without a nanny state
government and hired talent coddling them all the way.

Well said.

===

Yes.

All of this talk about how benign mandatory registration is, assumes
that we will always have a benign government going forward. I don't
think that's a good assumption at all, and meanwhile you've let the
camel get his nose into the tent in a big way. There's a very real
risk of making the cure worse than the problem.



Ah, the "slippery slope" argument again except now it's a camel sticking
his nose in your tent. :-)

If mandatory registration really bothers anyone, they should never
purchase a gun from a dealer. They will have to rely on private
transfers or "out of the car trunk" deals at gun shows.




Wayne's answer is the same one conservatives gave to oppose the
abolition of slavery, to oppose child labor laws, to keep from giving
women the vote, to oppose social security, to oppose medicare, to oppose
the voting rights act, et cetera ad nauseum.

"once you let blacks vote, their noses will be in the tent in a big way."


Why should folks who can't afford an ID for voting have to go through
the hassle, pay for the FFL, and provide picture ID's simply to
purchase a gun?

How much does a voter ID cost? Every state I checked offer them for free.

Well, according to some liberals, it's the cost and hassle of getting
the ID that equates to a 'poll tax'.

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.

===

Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this
unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies
clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear
about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important
question.



In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to
reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them.
Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in
the USA are not registered anywhere.

How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the
people's hands?

It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight.

You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars.

I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support
many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more
related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much
on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think
because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer.

Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all
states to implement ineffective laws.



Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments:

Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be
in the people's hands?"

Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns"


Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars."

Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent
crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-)

Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to
require all states to implement ineffective laws.

Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration
for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists
in *all* the states. It's a federal law.

At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not
registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of
the gun.

Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.

[Wayne.B]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.

===

Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this
unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies
clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear
about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important
question.



In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to
reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them.
Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in
the USA are not registered anywhere.

How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the
people's hands?

It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight.

You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars.

I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support
many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more
related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much
on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think
because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer.

Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all
states to implement ineffective laws.



Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments:

Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be
in the people's hands?"

Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns"


Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars."

Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent
crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-)

Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to
require all states to implement ineffective laws.

Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration
for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists
in *all* the states. It's a federal law.

At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not
registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of
the gun.

Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.



===

Your cure is worse than the disease. Take a look at that "friend or
family member" statistic. How do you propose to fix that?

[Harrold]

On 11/4/2014 8:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.

===

Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this
unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies
clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear
about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important
question.



In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to
reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them.
Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in
the USA are not registered anywhere.

How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the
people's hands?

It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight.

You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars.

I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support
many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more
related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much
on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think
because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer.

Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all
states to implement ineffective laws.



Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments:

Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be
in the people's hands?"

Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns"


Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars."

Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent
crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-)

Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to
require all states to implement ineffective laws.

Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration
for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists
in *all* the states. It's a federal law.

At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not
registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of
the gun.

Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.








I thought you were done with this thread. ;-)

[Mr. Luddite]

On 11/4/2014 8:51 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 08:34:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/4/2014 7:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 11/3/2014 8:38 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:57:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The registration document required on dealer purchases can trace the
serial number of the firearm from the manufacturer to the dealer and
then to the original purchaser. That record of custody becomes broken
when you do a private transfer.

===

Exactly what problem or crime do you expect to solve with this
unbroken chain of custody? I don't hear law enforcement agencies
clamoring that they really need this. In mot crimes that I hear
about, the original owner of the gun does not seem to be an important
question.



In itself registration won't prevent crimes Wayne but it may start to
reduce the number of guns readily available to those who commit them.
Right now it is estimated that between 20 and 40 percent of the guns in
the USA are not registered anywhere.

How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be in the
people's hands?

It's a process. It won't return any rewards overnight.

You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars.

I agree that from what I've read most in law enforcement do not support
many of the contemplated new gun-control proposals but they are more
related to things like gun types, magazine sizes, etc. There isn't much
on the concept of background checks and registration, mainly I think
because those laws already exist for guns purchased through a dealer.

Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to require all
states to implement ineffective laws.



Can't help myself. My responses to your questions and comments:

Bar: "How many guns should there be in the USA that are allowed to be
in the people's hands?"

Me: "As many as they want. I am not against owning guns"


Bar: "You can stop the same number of car related deaths each year by
outlawing cars."

Me: "False equivalency. Cars are not a cause of violent
crimes committed by criminals" Maybe "get-a-way cars" :-)

Bar: "Again, the laws exist and are ineffective and you want to
require all states to implement ineffective laws.

Me: "The laws that require a background check and registration
for guns purchased from a licensed dealer already exists
in *all* the states. It's a federal law.

At issue are the guns acquired by other means that are not
registered and traceable to the current owner or possessor of
the gun.

Here are the stats on guns *used in crimes*:

39.6% are obtained from a friend or family member.
39.2% are obtained "on the street" or from an illegal source.
0.7% are purchased at a gun show.
1% are purchased a flea market.
3.8% are from a pawn shop.
8.3% are bought at FFL licenced retail outlets

So, you can see that the overwhelming majority of guns that end up being
used in a crime come from sources that *do not* require that a chain of
custody is maintained.

That's why the registration of guns is ineffective as it stands today.

If transfers required re-registration to subsequent owners, the number
of guns available "on the street" would diminish over time and those
used in a crime would be more traceable.

We can never completely eliminate gun crimes but when there are 74 or
more shootings in schools in 18 months, don't you think it's worth trying?

That's my argument.



===

Your cure is worse than the disease. Take a look at that "friend or
family member" statistic. How do you propose to fix that?



If you are the registered owner of a gun that is used in a crime, you
share the responsibility for the commitment of that crime unless it is
reported as stolen or lost within a time prescribed by law (typically
24-48 hrs).

Transfer of ownership to friends or family requires state registration
by new owner. This does not require paying a FFL. In MA we can do it
on-line and it's free as long as the new owner holds a valid gun permit.